The Supreme Court, starting Monday, is hearing three days of arguments on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health overhaul. A ruling is expected in late June. On Monday, the justices hear arguments on whether to shelve the entire case until 2014, when most of the law takes effect.

The Journal has several reporters at the court, and they will rotate in and out of the courtroom to post updates here. The arguments started shortly after 10 a.m. E.T. and ran for 90 minutes.

The most closely watched issue is whether Congress exceeded its constitutional powers when it passed the law’s insurance mandate, which requires most individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. But to rule on that issue, the court first has to conclude that plaintiffs are allowed to challenge the mandate now, before the penalties go into effect in 2014. That is what will be argued on Monday.

Nearly all lower courts that considered health-care challenges have decided that the lawsuits can proceed now, not in 2014. But one federal appeals court, in Richmond, Va., reached a contrary conclusion, saying the insurance-mandate penalties amount to a type of tax that can only be challenged after it is collected, rather than before.

The arguments are set to start shortly after 10 a.m., and the news from the arguments will likely come in bursts after that for the 90 minutes of the hearing, as there is no reporting (or photos, or broadcasts) from inside the courtroom. We will also report on any protests or other happenings outside the court.

Hundreds of activists and would-be spectators are gathered outside the Supreme Court. Yellow “don’t tread on me” flags and Tea Party Patriots t-shirts could be spotted among the crowd–but organized activism was mainly from the backers of the law, prompting some opponents to ask other people present if they knew where they could find “repealers.” Photo: Reuters

The supporters of the law are rallying Â just beneath the steps of the court with white-coated doctors and people who said they’d been helped by the law.Â Labor union activists marched in a circle bearing signs highlighting aspects of the law, including expanded insurance coverage for young adults and guarantees of insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. They were led in “I love ObamaCare” chants by organizers wearing neon tabards bearing the name of the AFSCME labor union. Photo: Getty Images

Supporters of the law, led by activist group Families USA, had pledged to offer a “spectacle” outside the court for observers, TV crews and reporters, who nearly matched them in number. Their offerings Monday morning included a brass trio.

Court officials started offering the last remaining seats inside the courtroom to people who were queued up outside at 7 in the morning. Many of them had been waiting there since Friday.Â But some people in line turned down the day’s pass in favor of holding out until Tuesday, when the court will hear arguments on the centerpiece of the challenge to the law, the requirement that most Americans carry insurance of pay a fee. Photo: AFP/Getty Images

There is little animosity or tension between the protesters — just a few exchanges of chants, like “health care is marching in” and “freedom is matching out.” Â As one of the supporters of the health care law played on his bongo drum, though, some of the tea party protesters nodded their heads to the beat.

Brook Silva-Braga, 32, who traveled from Brooklyn, N.Y. with his ex-girlfriend Gillian Andres to get tickets to watch the argument, was one of the people who decided to wait until Tuesday rather than take a Monday ticket. That gives him another 24 hours to wait. Â Mr. Silva-Braga said he had placed a Craigslist ad Sunday to pay someone to hold his spot overnight to allow him to get some sleep at a friend’s house, but that he had had no takers.

With the arguments getting under way now, it seems a good time to give a rundown of the schedule this week:Â Monday: 90 minutes of argument on whether to shelve the entire case because of a federal law requiring taxpayers to pay their assessments before they can challenge a levy’s legality.Tuesday: Two hours of argument on whether the law’s requirement that most Americans carry health insurance or pay a penalty, also known as the â€œindividual mandate,â€

CNN is reporting that Republican hopeful Rick Santorum is set to make an appearance later Monday, to score points against GOP rival Mitt Romney over his health-care efforts as Massachusetts governor. Photo: Associated Press

Due to the reporting restrictions at the court, we will be rotating reporters in and out. Â We will keep reporting on the protests and other action outside the court as we wait for updates on the action inside.

To win, the challengers of the Obama health law must secure all five conservatives. Based on his prior opinions, Justice Clarence Thomas seems virtually certain to vote against the mandate. The records of the other four, however, are sufficiently ambiguous as to make their votes more difficult to predict. The four liberals–Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan–are seen as siding with the government.

As if it wasn’t occupied enough, the Supreme Court chose Monday morning to take care of some other business, issuing opinions on two cases and procedural orders on others.

One of the opinions comes in connection with a law that instructs the State Department to register the birthplace of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem as Israel on passports, if the passport applicant requests it. The Obama administration challenged the law as an infringement on the executive branch’s authority. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court didnâ€™t get to the merits of the dispute but said lower courts should decide whether the law is constitutional, something the lower courts had declined to do earlier.

The status of Jerusalem arouses passions on a par with the health law, but this technical decision isn’t likely to stoke them.

In a twist, the first lawyer set to stand up before the court Monday morning wasnâ€™t Donald Verrilli or Paul Clement, the powerhouse advocates leading each side. Instead itâ€™s Robert Long, a Covington & Burling partner who is arguing that the case isnâ€™t ripe for adjudication. Long was hired by the Supreme Court to make that argument because both of the litigantsâ€”in a rare point of agreementâ€”say the case is ready to be decided.

The two sides are making different arguments for why the case should not be shelved. The government says that the act doesn’t apply because the mandate — and penalty — is not a tax. The challengers say the law is unclear, and that the mandate is a separate issue from penalty.

Robert Long, who is arguing that litigation should be delayed until 2014,Â made three minutes of opening remarks on the act. He described the law Â as a “pay first, litigate later” law that is essential for government to function–meaning that any challenge to a tax should be litigated only after people start paying the tax.Â He said there was “no reason to believe” that Congress had intended to exempt from the act the health law’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a fine after 2014. Â He pointed to the law’s provisions that the fine will be assessed and collected by the Internal Revenue Service, along with other tax payments, and bore all the key characteristics of a tax.

Justice Antonin Scalia was first to interrupt Mr. Long, with a question about the way in which the penalty would be processed. Mr. Scalia asked about the involvement of the Health and Human Services department in considering the application of the penalty, suggesting that that could differentiate it from other taxes.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Mr. Long to identify any cases where an outcome could have been different if the act had been applied, and noted that the Supreme Court has issued a variety of different interpretations of how to apply the act since its passage in 1867. Mr. Long said that Congress has passed “numerous” amendments strengthening the act and that he believed those were proof that it had acquiesced to its development.

Mr. Long is arguing that the act cannot be waived by the government when it wants to, noting among other reasons that there could be problems if the government forgets to respond to every tax case raised in court.

Mr. Long’s remarks prompted a series of quips from the justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted: “This assumes a lack of competency about the government, which I doubt.” Justice Scalia weighed in: “There will be no parade of horribles because all federal courts are intelligent.”

Mr. Long, for his part, threw in his own barb that the existence of the act deters people from bringing suits: “Not all people who litigate against federal taxes are rational.”

Correction: An earlier version of this item misidentified Justice Sotomayor as Justice Elena Kagan.

Justice Stephen Breyer told Mr. Long that he was “probably leaning in favor” of his arguments about the importance of upholding the principle of the Anti-Injunction Act, but asked whether Mr. Long thought it applied in the health case because the act is intended to prevent interference with a revenue source. The individual mandate penalty, the judge said, isn’t intended to be a revenue source.

Mr. Long challenged that, pointing to projections that the penalty would raise some funds. Â He also said that had it simply been called a tax in the health law, “there would be absolutely no question that the Anti-Injunction Act applies.”

Theresa BrownGold, a Bucks County, Pa., artist, stood in front of the court Monday holding a large oil-on-linen painting of a Speaker John Boehner and signs calling for expanded health care access. Ms. BrownGold interviews people about their experience with the health care system and then paints them, often in a light that reflects their experience with the system. More on Washington Wire. Also, hear from the other side, from an opponent of the health law. Photo: Andrew Grossman

Justice Sotomayor pointed to other provisions in the health law that are labeled taxes. Mr. Long replied that he thought it would be a mistake to interpret that as evidence that Congress only wanted to apply the act selectively.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the plaintiffs’ suit against the health law was clearly challenging its provision that they must buy health insurance and that they have said they will not resist paying the penalty if it is found to be constitutional. Mr. Long replied that he saw the plaintiffs as challenging both the provision and the penalty.

The action so far, as we pause for the next set of updates: Court-appointed lawyer Robert Long told the court in the opening minutes that a decision on the case should be put off until at least 2014, citing a 19th century law known as the Anti-Injunction Act. But he faced a string of skeptical questions from justices. Read the updated WSJ.com main article, which include an overview of the day’s action.

Justice Kagan questions whether Mr. Long is making a strained reading of the health-care law in order to make his argument.Â Mr. Long in response concedes the health law â€œis not a model of clarity,â€

Justice Samuel Alito jumps in and appears bothered by difference between what the federal government is arguing Monday versus what it will argue Tuesday.Â He notes that for jurisdictional purposes, the government is arguing the insurance mandate penalties are not a tax.Â But he points out that on Tuesday, the government will argue that, for constitutional purposes, the penalties do function like a tax.Â Mr. Verrilli responds that the arguments are different because the two legal questions are different.

A quick look at Mr.Â Verrilli’s carreer: He has a B.A. from Yale Â and J.D. from Columbia Law School. He worked at Jenner & Block from 1988-2009; was associate deputy attorney general, 2009-2010; White House Counsel’s Office, 2010-2011; and solicitor general, 2011-present. His Supreme Court clerkship was for Justice William Brennan. Photo: Melissa Golden for The Wall Street Journal

Justice Ginsburg says that if the government is right that the insurance mandate penalties are not a tax, then the court doesnâ€™t need to answer more difficult questions about how to interpret the Anti-Injunction Act.Â Mr. Verrilli agrees.Â Justice Anthony Kennedy then jumps in: â€œDonâ€™t you want to know the answerâ€

Justice Alito says that many citizens may eventually disagree with the government on whether the insurance-mandate penalties apply to them.Â They may also disagree on how the penalty is assessed.Â Can all of those people go to court now, he asks.Â Mr. Verrilli says no.Â They would have to seek administrative remedies first, he says.Â Justice Alito then points to a friend of the court brief filed by former commissioners of the IRS.Â That brief predicted a flood of litigation.Â â€œAre they wrong?â€

As Solicitor General Donald Verrilli sits down, it appears he faced much less hostile questioning than Mr. Long, who was appointed by the court to argue that litigation on the health law should be delayed until 2014 .Â By all indications so far, the court appears likely to believe that there are no jurisdictional impediments that will prohibit it from considering the constitutionality of the insurance mandate.

A note on the audience for Monday’s oral argument.Â A Supreme Court spokeswoman says there were 120 seats in the courtroom for the general public, and another 34 seats that rotated every three to five minutes, giving more court watchers a brief chance to glimpse the proceedings.Â There were another 76 seats for members of the Supreme Court bar and 117 seats for members of the media.

This week, the Supreme Court is breaking with usual practice andÂ plans to provide same-day audio of the arguments, as well as an unofficial transcript, “as soon as the digital files are available for uploading to the Website.” The court says that should be no later than 2 p.m. for Monday’s arguments. The court’s audio file page isÂ here.

From what we’ve seen today, most of the justices appeared ready to get to the core of this case now, without waiting until 2014. Overall, the justices didnâ€™t seem receptive to the argument that the Anti-Injunction Act bars a suit until 2014 or after because they didn’t see the insurance-mandate penalty as the kind of tax envisioned by the act. Photo: Associated Press

Rounding out the arguments inside the courtroom, Gregory Katsas of the law firm Jones Day spoke for the challengers to the law. He argued that it was irrelevant whether the penalty qualified as a tax, because the challengers’ lawsuit targeted the requirement to carry insurance, not the penalty for failing to do so.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that distinction seemed senseless, because the penalty was the only consequence for disregarding the mandate. Otherwise, the law would be â€œcompletely toothless,â€

Mr. Katsas argued that there were other injuries potentially resulting from the obligation to carry insurance. He said the coverage mandate was likely to drive thousands of low-income Americans to sign up for Medicaid, the joint federal-state program which the Affordable Care Act expands. Florida alone, he said would have to spend an additional $500 million per year or more on such individuals.

An initial impression on listening to the courtâ€™s audio file: Itâ€™s not just the justicesâ€™ words but the tone of their questions that matters. And that tone is consistently skeptical that the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the penalties under the insurance mandate.

Hereâ€™s a quote from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:Â Â â€œThis is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if itâ€™s successful, they wonâ€™t â€“ nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise.â€

OK, we’re going to shut down the live blog for now. We’ll return Tuesday morning, with two hours of arguments, starting at 10 a.m., on whether the law’s requirement that most Americans carry health insurance or pay a penalty, also known as the â€œindividual mandate,â€

For more updates today, go here for theÂ main article, which will be updated for the rest of the day, and we’ll also post the annotated transcript (with highlights highlighted) in the live blog and the main article.

Comments (5 of 65)

I just could not depart your website before suggesting that I actually loved the standard information a person supply to your visitors? Is going to be again incessantly in order to check out new posts.

12:06 pm June 30, 2013

number book wrote:

Thanks for sharing excellent informations. Your web-site is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you’ve on this blog. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this website page :)

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.